24 Nov 2023
Because all the company's liabilities were discharged at removal, the applicants as the only shareholders would have been entitled to the property; Treasury raised no objection to vesting and s 324(4) empowers the Court to vest the property in entitled persons, the Court must grant the vesting order and authorise LINZ to register transfer to the applicants in the stated proportions.
27 Sept 2023
On the balance of probabilities the property and ASB funds were tainted by proceeds of the defendant's significant criminal activity; forensic bank analysis, unexplained deposits, travel and physical evidence at the home established at least constructive knowledge by the spouse (wilful blindness), so s66 relief is refused; however s67 discretion and proportionality require mitigating relief so the wife is awarded an 8.33% untainted interest in the family home while the remainder vests in the Crown.
17 May 2023
The Court dismissed the strike-out and debarment/contempt applications because the plaintiff's breach of trust and knowing receipt claims were not clearly untenable and raised factual issues requiring trial, and the defendants' serious allegations against counsel were unsupported by evidence.
14 Dec 2022
The application to vest litigation rights was refused because it was not fair: the proposed claim lacked merit (applicant's liability had already been limited to the amount he undisputedly owed), the applicant would obtain a potential windfall post-bankruptcy, he had executed waivers of independent legal advice, there was no evidence of funding or capacity to provide security for costs and the litigation rights had no practical value to remedy any loss caused by the OA's disclaimer.
25 Nov 2022
The Court refused extension of time and special leave because the appeal was over 18 months out of time with inadequate explanation, weak prospects of success and likely prejudice to the respondent; the District Court's strike-out was upheld because the Family Court orders had vested the property in the respondent and the pleaded privacy/intrusion/human rights causes of action could not be made out on the pleaded facts (intrusion into seclusion not established, NZBORA/UDHR do not create private causes of action between individuals).
2 Nov 2022
The Court applied fairness/justice factors derived from s119 jurisprudence and held it was just to vest the disclaimed unit in the Body Corporate because mortgagees had disclaimed leaving no effective enforcement route, levies and rates would continue to accrue to the detriment of other owners, relevant third parties (Crown and liquidators) did not oppose, and vesting would allow sale to satisfy debts; mortgages remain subsisting to the extent of amounts secured at the time of disclaimer but do not preclude vesting.
29 Sept 2022
The Trust is unable to meet debts as they fall due and appointment of a licensed insolvency practitioner as receiver is reasonably necessary and just and equitable; John Marshall Scutter is appointed receiver, trustees must not exercise development-related powers (those are to be exercised by the receiver), the receiver may borrow, engage consultants and agents, follow Companies/Receivership priority rules for creditors, be paid from trust assets, report within 12 months and seek Court leave if receivership extends beyond that period.
14 Sept 2022
The Court granted the vesting order because the trustee removal pre-dated the Trusts Act 2019 commencement so transitional provisions required application of the repealed Trustee Act 1956; the applicants established the necessity to vest the property in the continuing trustees; the respondent had no interest to object; and it was appropriate to determine the routine application without notice to avoid delay and prejudice.
21 Oct 2021
Medical evidence established that Bella and Maera lack capacity under r 4.30; affidavits showed the proposed guardians satisfied the r 4.35(2)(b) criteria; accordingly the Court appointed the daughters as litigation guardians and dispensed with service under r 4.36(1) because service would cause distress; the Court also corrected the intituling error.
8 Oct 2021
Respondent's unauthorised use of estate property as security for personal debt, transfer of estate property to a company he controlled contrary to beneficiaries' agreement, failure to pay rates exposing properties to forced sale, long-standing failure to administer the estates efficiently, and clear conflict between his personal interests and duties as administrator made removal expedient under s 21; appointment of an independent trustee and vesting of titles under s 89 LTA 2017 was the suitable, practical and efficient remedy to protect beneficiaries' interests.